U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services Research ...€¦ · 2 -TABLE OF CONTENTS 2016 WS Research Needs Assessment Report Abstract.....3 Key Words ... Feral cats/dogs 0

U.S. Department of Agr icul ture

Wi ld l i fe Serv ices

Research Needs Assessment

2016

Mark Tobin, Team Leader

USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services National Wildlife Research Center

4101 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521

and

Gail Keirn (APHIS Legislative and Public Affairs) Doug Eckery (WS/National Wildlife Research Center)

Dale Nolte (WS/National Feral Swine Damage Management Program) John McConnell (WS/Eastern Region) Kristina Godwin (WS/Eastern Region) Michael Yeary (WS/Western Region) Michael Linnell (WS/Western Region)

September 2016

2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS

2016 WS Research Needs Assessment Report

Abstract ..................................................................................... 3

Key Words ................................................................................. 3

Introduction ............................................................................... 4

Methods ..................................................................................... 5

Responses ................................................................................. 6

Conclusions ............................................................................ 24

Literature Cited ....................................................................... 25

Acknowledgements ................................................................ 26

Appendix I: WS Deputy Administrator Memo to Employees ........ 28

Appendix II: Letter to Stakeholders ................................................. 29

Appendix III: Survey to WS Research (NWRC) ............................... 30

Appendix IV: Survey to WS Operations .......................................... 46

Appendix V: Survey to External Stakeholders ............................... 65

REPORT - 3

2016 WILDLIFE SERVICES RESEARCH NEEDS ASSESSMENT

ABSTRACT

The Wildlife Services (WS) program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture provides

Federal leadership and expertise in managing problems caused by wildlife. The National

Wildlife Research Center (NWRC), the research arm of WS, applies scientific expertise to the

development of practical methods to resolve problems caused by the interaction of wild

animals and society. Approximately every 5 years WS conducts a research needs

assessment (RNA) to identify priority research needs of stakeholders. The results of the RNA,

together with guidance from Congress and the WS Deputy Administrator, help establish

research priorities at the NWRC. The most recent RNA, conducted in 2016, solicited

information from the WS Operations program, NWRC research scientists, and selected

external stakeholders. Respondents provided information about their most pressing economic

and ecological wildlife conflicts; livestock and human pathogens carried by wildlife that are of

most concern; research needs related to existing wildlife management tools; new technologies

that should be explored; specific program, state or regional wildlife conflicts; and the use of

and satisfaction with various NWRC services.

KEY WORDS

National Wildlife Research Center, research, wildlife conflicts, Wildlife Services

4 - REPORT

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS), Wildlife Services program (WS) provides Federal leadership and expertise in

managing problems caused by wildlife. WS biologists work with a variety of stakeholders to

manage a wide range of conflicts, including crop depredations, aviation strike hazards, zoonotic

and livestock diseases, degradation of natural habitats, and predation on threatened and

endangered species. Management methods and tools vary depending on the species and

specific situation, and include non-lethal deterrents, traps , livestock protection dogs, vaccines,

chemical repellents, and toxicants.

The National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC, Center) is the research arm of the WS

program. The NWRC is headquartered on the Colorado State University foothills campus, with

additional staff stationed at eight locations throughout the United States. Center scientists apply

scientific expertise to find biologically sound, practical and effective solutions to resolving wildlife

damage management issues. Research conducted by NWRC scientists addresses a wide

variety of human-wildlife conflicts related to agriculture, property damage, human health and

safety, invasive species, natural resources, and endangered and threatened species.

Research priorities at the NWRC are established with guidance from Congress and the WS

Deputy Administrator, together with stakeholder input and the results of a research needs

assessment (RNA) that is conducted about every 5 years (Packham and Connolly 1992;

Bruggers et al. 1996, 2002; Clark et al. 2007; Tobin et al. 2012). Herein we report the results of

the most recent RNA, which was conducted in 2016.

REPORT - 5

METHODS

The WS Deputy Administrator solicited participation in the 2016 RNA from WS Operations

and NWRC researchers. Jessica Tegt of the Mississippi State University, Center for Resolving

Human-Wildlife Conflicts solicited input from selected external stakeholders. Approximately

250 individuals were surveyed using three different SurveyMonkey questionnaires developed

to target the three groups. The WS Operations group included the WS Management Team;

WS Assistant Regional Directors and State Directors; the WS National Coordinators of the

rabies, feral swine, airport wildlife hazards, and aviation safety national programs; the manager

of the WS Pocatello Supply Depot; the two Deputy Directors of the WS Operational Support

Staff; and the WS Resource Management Specialist. The NWRC group included the NWRC

management team and research grade scientists. External stakeholders included non-WS

federal agencies and non-federal stakeholders with an interest in and/or knowledge of human-

wildlife conflicts, including livestock, agriculture, forestry, aviation, aquaculture industries; state

and local governments; university research and extension personnel; non-government

organizations; animal welfare and conservation groups; and the private pest control industry.

Slightly different versions of the survey were distributed via SurveyMonkey to NWRC

employees (Appendix III), WS Operations employees (Appendix IV), and external stakeholders

(Appendix V). The basic survey consisted of a series of questions asking each respondent to

specify his/her affiliation or area of work, position and title; to list areas of wildlife-human

conflict of most economic, ecological, or health concern; to identify priority areas for research;

and to answer a series of questions about his/her knowledge of and interaction with the

NWRC.

6 - REPORT

Some of the species/species groups and conflict areas listed in the results could have been

put in 2 or more groups, and for some, we made a decision about the most appropriate group.

For example, we categorized beavers and muskrats as “aquatic mammals,” but placed nutria in

the “invasive species” category. Because of the magnitude of their impacts, we placed feral

swine in a group by themselves instead of with ungulates or invasive species. We categorized

coyotes, wolves, and cougars depredating livestock or game as “large carnivores,” but placed

coyotes causing urban/suburban problems in the “urban conflicts” category. Likewise, we

placed bears causing depredation or agricultural problems in a group by themselves, but bears

causing urban/suburban problems threats in “urban conflicts” category. We categorized rats,

ground squirrels, and prairie dogs at “rodents,” but characterized beavers and muskrats as

“aquatic mammals” and nutria as “invasive species.”

RESPONSES

Fifty-five people (73%) responded to the WS Operations survey, including 26 from the

Eastern Region (ER, Figure 1), 20 from the Western Region (WR), and 9 from the WS national

level (headquarters, Operational Support Staff, and national programs). Thirty research grade

scientists and administrators (83%) responded to the NWRC survey. Forty-six people (32%)

responded to the stakeholder survey. External respondents included people from academia

(24%), state natural resource agencies (15%), livestock commodity groups (13%), non-profit

organizations (11%), agricultural commodity groups (9%), state agricultural agencies (4%), crop

commodity groups (2%), human health agencies (2%), and other (20%).

Wildlife conflicts of economic concern

All respondents in the WR, and more than half of respondents at the WS national level and

REPORT - 7

external stakeholders, cited predation by large carnivores (i.e., coyotes, wolves, cougars, or

bears) as among the three most significant economic wildlife issues in their respective

program, state or region, compared to only 26% of respondents in the WS ER (Table 1). Feral

swine, aviation strike hazards, and aquatic mammals (beavers and muskrats) were also major

concerns in the WR. Respondents in the ER were most concerned about aviation strike

hazards, aquatic mammals, and feral swine. Respondents in all groups listed a broad

spectrum of avian conflicts involving fish-eating birds (3); Canada geese (2); vultures (2); crop

damage by starlings (1), blackbirds (2), cedar waxwings (1), and sandhill cranes (1); pigeon

damage to structures (2); urban bird damage; aircraft strike hazards (1), and gulls (1). A

Figure 1. Eastern and Western Regions of the WS Program.

8 - REPORT

minority of respondents listed various invasive species (brown treesnakes, nutria, axis deer, and

mute swans, and invasive species in general) as being a major concern. Wildlife diseases,

mostly rabies and bovine tuberculosis (bTB), were major concerns to WS national and NWRC

respondents.

Anticipated future wildlife conflicts of economic concern

We also asked respondents to identify wildlife economic conflicts that currently might not

be major problems in their state, region or program, but are likely to become so in the next 8-10

years (Table 2). Feral swine were the wildlife issue most frequently listed by respondents in

Table 1. Species/species groups or wildlife damage issues identified as one of the 3 most significant wildlife economic impacts by percentage

of respondents.

Wildlife Services

Species/Species Group/Damage

Western Region (n=23)

Eastern Region (n=23)

National Programs

(n=9)

NWRC

(n=30)

External Stakeholders

(n=34)

Predation 100 26 56 20 53

Feral swine 43 43 89 63 32

Birds 26 43 44 93 50

Aviation-wildlife strikes 35 52 22 27 0

Aquatic mammals 30 48 22 7 3

Invasive species 12 0 11 17 9

Ungulates 0 30 22 20 30

Rodents 23 0 0 20 26

Wildlife diseases 6 4 33 37 12

Predation on T&E species 0 0 0 0 6

Raccoons 0 0 0 0 3

Feral cats/dogs 0 0 0 6 3

Bears (agriculture) 0 9 0 3 3

REPORT - 9

both the WR and WS national, but were also listed by more than a quarter of ER, NWRC and

external stakeholders. Various bird conflicts were the number one concern of ER respondents,

but were also frequently listed by the other groups. Bird issues mentioned included predation

by fish-eating birds (29% of ER respondents, 17% of both WS national respondents and

external stakeholders), aviation strike hazards (19% ER), and geese (9% ER, 14% WR).

Cranes, turkeys, raptors, corvids, vultures, starlings, and blackbirds were also identified as

likely looming economic problems. More than half of WR respondents expressed a concern

about future urban wildlife conflicts involving coyotes, deer, geese, bears, or prairie dogs.

Various wildlife-transmitted diseases were a top concern of both WS national and NWRC

Table 2. Species/species groups or wildlife damage issues identified as currently not causing significant economic impacts, but anticipated to

become more severe in the next 8-10 years by percentage of respondents.

Wildlife Services




National Programs

(n=6)

NWRC

(n=24)


(n=24)

Feral swine 62 29 83 29 25

Birds 38 48 17 21 29


Predation 29 14 17 17 32

Urban conflicts 52 24 0 4 21


Bears (property, urban,

unspecified)

9 24 0 0 8

Ungulates 9 19 0 4 5



Rodents 5 5 0 0 0


10 - REPORT

respondents. Disease issues identified as likely to become more severe included highly

pathogenic avian influenza (9% ER, 12% NWRC, 12% external stakeholders), chronic wasting

disease (9% ER, 17% WS national, 4% NWRC, 12% external stakeholders), and rabies (9% ER,

19% WR, 50% WS national, 4% NWRC). A number of respondents listed just wildlife diseases

in general. Predation on livestock and game species by coyotes, wolves, and cougars were

perceived as a growing economic threat by all groups of respondents, especially in the WR and

external stakeholders. Urban wildlife conflicts are a growing concern in both the ER and WR,

and of external stakeholders. Respondents in the WR and external stakeholders specified

coyotes as the main urban threats; ER respondents listed coyotes, bears, and wildlife in

general. The invasive species/species groups identified as growing threats included reptiles

(ER), fish (ER and WR), nutria (WR), brown treesnakes (WR, NWRC), and monk parakeets

(NWRC). Finally, both ER and the WR respondents identified bears and ungulates as likely

causing increasingly severe economic conflicts in the next 8-10 years.

Wildlife conflicts of ecological concern

A majority of respondents in all groups rated feral swine as one of the top three wildlife

issues of ecological concern (Table 3). Coyote, cougar and bear predation on game species,

sage grouse, and endangered black-footed ferrets was a major ecological concern in the WR.

Birds also were an ecological issue for all groups, especially the ER. Specific issues included

fish-eating birds (33% ER, 10% WR, 10% NWRC, 11% external stakeholders), geese (17% ER),

bird-aircraft strikes (27% NWRC), cowbirds (8% ER), and ravens (20% WS national). There

was also widespread concern about invasive species and ungulates.

REPORT - 11

Anticipated wildlife conflicts of future ecological concern

Respondents identified the top 3 conflicts/wildlife damage problems that currently do not

cause significant ecological impacts in a particular region or state, but are anticipated to do so

in the next 8-10 years (Table 4). Feral swine, wildlife-transmitted diseases, birds, and invasive

species were most often predicted to become more severe problems. Chronic wasting

disease was the disease most often specified (50% and 58% of ER and WR, respectively, 20%

WS national), but highly pathogenic avian influenza (19% ER) and to a lesser degree bovine

tuberculosis, rabies, Lyme disease, bat white-nose syndrome, avian malaria, and Brucellosis

were also listed as diseases of likely increased ecological importance. Respondents in all

groups except external stakeholders identified various avian conflicts as looming ecological

Table 3. Species/species groups or wildlife damage issues identified as one of the 3 most significant wildlife ecological impacts by percentage

of respondents.

Wildlife Services




National Programs

(n=5)

NWRC

(n=29)


(n=28)

Feral swine 79 75 100 65 54

Birds 10 58 20 28 14



Ungulates 0 33 20 28 29


Predation 47 8 0 0 11

Aviation-wildlife strikes 10 0 0 7 0


Rodents 5 4 0 3 7


Wild horses/burros 0 0 0 0 4

12 - REPORT

challenges. The specific problems cited encompass a range of species and situations: double-

crested cormorants (19% ER), American white pelicans (19% and 20% for the ER and WS

national, respectively), Canada geese (12% ER), and ravens (16% and 20% in WR and WS

national, respectively). Vultures, barn swallows, starlings, and snow geese were also cited as

looming ecological concerns. Large carnivore predation on livestock and game species

(coyotes in the ER and coyotes and cougars in the WR) were specifically mentioned. Urban

conflicts involving coyotes and bears were also predicted to increase. Two respondents listed

just urbanization or urban sprawl, without specifying any species or particular problem.

Table 4. Species/species groups or wildlife damage issues identified as currently not causing significant ecological impacts, but anticipated to

become more severe in the next 8-10 years by percentage of respondents.

Wildlife Services




National Programs

(n=5)

NWRC

(n=23)


(n=17)

Feral swine 58 19 100 26 35


Birds 26 44 40 26 0


Large carnivores 10 6 0 13 23



Urban conflicts 0 0 0 17 0

Rodents 10 0 0 0 0

Ungulates 0 6 0 0 0

Armadillos 0 0 0 0 6

REPORT - 13

Diseases/Pathogens of concern

A significant proportion of all groups listed rabies, highly pathogenic avian influenza,

chronic wasting disease, and swine-vectored diseases (Brucellosis, pseudorabies) as the major

wildlife or wildlife-vectored diseases or pathogens impacting livestock or human health (Table 5).

Half of all NWRC respondents also identified food-borne pathogens (E. coli, Salmonella,

antimicrobial resistance) as a significant threat.

Wildlife damage management tools

Respondents in all groups expressed a concern about the loss of various pesticides for

managing wildlife conflicts (Table 6). Many respondents listed pesticides in general, without

specifying any particular pesticide. DRC-1339 and M-44 were most commonly mentioned as

pesticides at risk. Six external stakeholders expressed concern about the potential loss of

second generation anticoagulants. Potential bans on trapping and snaring were a concern

expressed by all groups, especially the WR and external stakeholders. WR respondents and

external stakeholders were also concerned about the potential future bans on aerial gunning

operations. Public concerns about animal welfare and increasing regulations were the most

frequently cited reasons for the likely future loss of wildlife management tools.

Respondents expressed a need for research to improve the efficacy of a wide variety of

tools and methods (Table 7). WS Operations most frequently listed a need for better tools to

manage feral swine, coyotes and wolves, and birds. Aerial gunning operations and DRC-1339

were specifically mentioned. Respondents expressed the need for better methods of monitoring

traps remotely, better triggering devices, and trap tranquilizer devices. Many of the responses

did not specify a particular species or problem, but rather a general need for better toxicants,

traps, snares, or other devices or methods.

14 - REPORT

Table 5. Livestock or human diseases or pathogens identified as one of the top 3 diseases of concern by percentage of respondents.

Wildlife Services

Disease/Pathogen



National Programs

(n=5)

NWRC

(n=26)


(n=14)

Viruses

Rabies 53 44 60 23 37

Avian influenza 42 61 40 50 25

Arboviruses (i.e., Zika, Dengue, West Nile Virus)

0 6 0 15 0

Vesticular stomatitis 0 0 0 4 0

Encephalitis 0 0 0 4 0

Foot and mouth disease 0 0 0 4 0

Hanta virus 0 0 0 0 12

Japanese encephalitis 0 0 0 4 0

Rift Valley Fever 0 0 0 4 0

Prions Chronic Wasting Disease

16 28 60 19 29

Bacteria

Swine-vectored diseases (i.e., brucellosis, pseudorabies)

42 61 40 11 46

Food-borne pathogens (i.e., E. coli, Salmonella, Antimicrobial resistant)

21 6 0 50 17

Bovine tuberculosis 5 11 0 8 12

Lyme disease 0 11 0 4 0

Plague 5 0 20 8 8

Leptospirosis 10 0 0 0 0

Typhus 0 0 0 0 4

Parasites Digenetic trematodes, liver flukes, tapeworms

0 11 0 0 25

Fungi Histoplasmosis

0 0 0 4 4

Protozoa

Cattle Tick Fever 0 0 0 4 0

Giardiasis 5 0 0 0 0

Miscellaneous

Tick/Mosquito-borne diseases 0 11 0 11 0

Vulture-vectored diseases 0 6 0 0 0

Mad cow disease 0 5 0 0 0

Blackbird diseases 0 0 0 4 0

Elk foot rot 0 0 0 0 4

Respondents listed a broad range of technologies and tools that might be useful in

conducting wildlife damage management research (Table 8). Twenty-six WS Operations

respondents suggested evaluation of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for various uses,

including harassment and damage assessments. Better baits and delivery systems for

repellents, toxicants, fertility control agents, pharmaceuticals, and oral vaccines were suggested

as promising areas for research. Many respondents suggested adaption of genetic tools for

DNA sequencing, detecting environmental DNA (eDNA), analyzing diets, metabolomics-

biochemical phenotyping, wildlife forensics, and developing multi-agent recombinant vaccines.

Table 6. Wildlife damage management tools and methods that might become unavailable/unusable in the future by number of respondents.

REPORT - 15

Wildlife Services

Tool/Method Operations NWRC External Stakeholders

Registered Pesticides 21 2 4

DRC-1339 16 1 2

M-44 8 1 -

Compound 1080 2 2 -

Anticoagulants - - 6

Alpha chloralose 1 - -

Wildlife contraceptives 2 1 -

Repellents - 1 1

Capture Devices

Traps/Snares 10 3 7

Pole traps 1 1 -

Dogs for treeing animals 1 - -

Aerial gunning operations 5 1 8

Bird deterrents 2 1 3

Livestock protection dogs - - 1

Lead ammunition 2 - 1

Explosives 1 - -

Night vision/thermal optics 1 - -

16 - REPORT

Table 7. Wildlife damage management tools and methods that need improvement by number of respondents.

Wildlife Services


Feral swine

Foot snares 1 - -

Traps 1 - -

Baits/lures 1 - -

Toxicant/Delivery system 1 - -

Detection 1 - -

Population estimation 1 - -

Monitoring crop damage 1 - -

Better ammunition 1 - -

Large carnivores

Toxicants 1 1 -

Livestock protection dogs 1 1 -

M-44s—multiple capsules 1 - -

Livestock protection in Eastern Region 1 - -

Aerial gunning operations (FLIR, target acquisition)

2 1 -

Nonlethal 1 1 -

Wolves (traps in grizzly habitat, barriers) 3 - -

Rabies

Oral rabies vaccine baits 1 - -

Bait competition - - 1

Birds

Toxicants/DRC-1339 (replace CU Bird Carrier, pigeons, house sparrows)

7 1 -

Scare devices for blueberries 1 - -

Repellents (corn seed treatment) 2 - -

Live traps - 1 1

Raptors (relocation, Verbail raptor traps) 2 1 -

Vulture (harassment, evaluation of patagial tags)

2 - -

Scare devices/harassment (flashing lights, inflatable effigies, fish-eating birds)

1 - -

Replacement for alpha chloralose - 1 -

Rodents (Loss of 2nd generation anticoagulants, aerial application)

1 - 2

Beaver (more selective traps)

2 1 -

Deer (culling methods)

1 - -

Mongoose (contraceptives)

1 - -

REPORT - 17

Wildlife Services


Nonspecific Needs

Toxicants 1 1 2

Traps (remote monitor, TTD) 4 3 3

Snares 2 - -

Baits/Lures - 1 1

Vaccines - 1 -

Scare devices 1 1 -

Repellents 1 - -

Disease surveillance tools 1 1 1

Damage assessment tools 1 - -

Contraceptives (single-use) 1 2 -

Night vision/Thermal optic tools 1 - -

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles - 1 1

Floating scare objects - - 1

Genomic identification capabilities - 1 -

Performance measures for monitoring populations and estimating damage

- 1 -

Lead ammunition 1 - -

Show benefits of modeling 1 - -

Table 7 continued. Wildlife damage management tools and methods that need improvement by number of respondents.

18 - REPORT

Table 8. Suggested technologies or tools used in other professions or areas that might be useful in wildlife damage management research.

WS Operations

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for harassment/damage assessments – 26

Genetics: genetic mapping, eDNA, DNA for diet analysis in feral swine

Remote monitoring devices/remote trip devices – 2

GIS/Spatial data - 2

Advanced computer modeling

Light emitting deterrent devices placed on livestock

List of grasses for use around airports to deter birds

Thermal imaging

Contraceptive for feral swine

Automated attractants for long-term traps

Net gunning

High-powered lasers

WS NWRC

Genetics: forensics, 16s bacterial rDNA sequencing of microbiome, siRNA, eDNA, genome sequencing of wildlife cell culture

and in-vitro methods to replace animal testing (2), metabolomics-biochemical phenotyping

Baits and delivery systems: sensory tools to enhance repellents and attractants, bird resistant feed, chemical repellents for

structures and food crops, qualities of baits and traps, injectable sterilization, species-specific pharmaceuticals

UAVs

Deterrents: dancing scarecrows (like those in front of car dealerships), electronic noses, trigger mechanisms based on species-

specific sounds

Modeling: incorporation of behavioral, spatial and population dynamics data; population estimation

Modification of bioterrorism detection systems for invasive species

Expansion of Rapid Frequency Identification (RFID) from fisheries to terrestrial and semi-aquatic mammals

High-tech imagery


UAVs

Genetics: multi-agent recombinant vaccines, genome sequencing

Baits and delivery systems: oral vaccines addition of repellents to toxicants to deter birds and land crabs, single-dose oral deliv-

ery of chemosterilants, Norbormide

Human dimensions studies

Livestock protection dog (breeds from around the world) for use in disease management

Electronic tags on livestock to learn about response to predator attacks

Lasers

Pumping soil cement into levees damaged by burrowing rodents

Male-only mosquito

Damage assessments and ecological studies

A variety of specific local and program research needs were identified (Table 9). Specific

research needs relating to feral swine and predators were most commonly mentioned, but

airports, beavers, vultures, deer, rodents, fish-eating birds, and diseases were also listed by

multiple respondents. A common theme expressed by respondents was the need for more or

REPORT - 19

better information about populations to facilitate management or support migratory bird permit

requests for species such as feral swine, cormorants, ravens, vultures, and raptors.

WS Operations program, local or regional research needs

When asked to list/describe a maximum of 2 research questions they would like addressed in

their program, state, or region, WS Operations respondents listed a wide variety of specific

needs (Table 10). These needs typically involved damage assessments for pest species and

the effectiveness of control methods; development of better management tools and guidelines;

and the assessment of environmental and non-target impacts.

NWRC outreach

NWRC outreach activities encompass a range of outlets, including one-on-one

communication, peer-reviewed and popular publications, GovDelivery (a government

stakeholder registry and communication system) and email announcements, the WS and NWRC

websites, and seminars and webinars (Figure 2). One-on-one communications with WS

Operations and NWRC employees and outreach materials (factsheets, press releases, and

technical notes) were the most frequently used outreach methods/tools used by all three groups

(WS Operations, NWRC, and external stakeholders) to get information about NWRC. An

internal quarterly newsletter called the NWRC Science Update is widely read by both Operations

and and NWRC employees. NWRC respondents avail themselves of peer-reviewed

publications and the NWRC website on a regular basis. WS Operations staff access the various

NWRC online materials less frequently.

20 - REPORT

WS Operations

Feral swine: movement patterns in southeast; food habits/DNA; spread of diseases on islands; ecosystem recovery time from swine

damage, impact on deer populations; damage to crops; management (2)

Predators: lethal vs nonlethal control of wolves; coyote predation on black-footed ferrets; golden eagle damage to livestock and sage

grouse; cost of predation damage management; effectiveness of nonlethal predation damage management techniques

Population modeling: cormorants, ravens (2), black vultures (5), raptors (2), cattle egrets, feral swine (2)

Beavers: impacts to salmonids and cold-water ecosystems (3); effectiveness of beaver exclusion devices; management

Vultures: damage to livestock and property (2)

DRC-1339: assessment of risks to non-target species (3)

T&E species: impacts of raven predation; benefits of recovering western snowy plover/other T&E species; impacts of invasive species

Airports: quantify risks of wildlife hazards; better estimates of collisions; design of retention ponds; better estimate of wildlife collisions

Bears: damage to timber

Ungulates: urban deer damage

Fish-eating birds: wading bird damage to agriculture

Ecological questions: impacts of habitat fragmentation on wildlife; impacts of oil and gas development on wildlife; hazards of lead

ammunition to birds of prey/eagles; monitor northern long-eared bat population

Rodents: how to control after eradication of brown treesnakes

Blackbird roost surveys

Importance of testing rabies vectors

WS NWRC

Feral swine: diseases on livestock; impacts to natural resources; population abundance monitoring; longitudinal disease; determining

detection probability; contact ecology

Predators: ecological impacts of coyote range expansion; ecological impacts of large-scale sterilization of coyotes and wolves;

efficacy of non-lethal predation damage management tools

Population modeling: population estimates/structure to improve culling strategies for vultures; population and take modeling to support

migratory bird permits (2); 3-dimensional animal movements; food webs

Airports: better use of behavioral principles in managing animal populations at airports; standardize airport wildlife surveys

Beavers: spatially explicit models to estimate movements and habitat use

Bird damage to animal agriculture

Overall impacts of control on native species and ecosystems

Rodents: ground squirrel/rodent damage to agricultural crops in California; non-target hazards of rodenticides to wildlife

Fish-eating birds: epidemiological impacts of diseases on aquaculture

Invasive species: ecological impact of removing invasive predators from islands; ecological environment that promotes spread of

invasive species and pathogens

Ungulates: impacts on natural and agricultural resources; competition with native species

Practical field methods to estimate damage and monitor populations

Ecological impacts of free-roaming or feral dogs

Unmanned aerial vehicles: use as scare devices

Diseases: contact ecology of raccoons, skunks and wild birds; long-term data collection on wildlife populations and disease; basic

surveys of peridomestic wildlife communities on farms

Impacts of climate change on migrating birds, other species distributions, etc.

Impacts of oil spills on wildlife


Feral swine (3)

Predators: cougars, benefits of livestock protection animals and shepherds

Grizzly bear

Ungulates: white-tailed deer and forests

Rodents: invasive tree squirrels, non-target impacts of rodenticides; impact of ground squirrel burrows on levees

Registration of repellents

Diseases: prevalence of rabies in raccoons; prevalence of white-nose syndrome; Chronic Wasting Disease

Ecological questions: impacts of climate change on wildlife

Adaptability of urban coyotes

Fish-eating birds: population monitoring of cormorants; impacts of diving ducks on production of aquaculture fingerlings

Vultures: population monitoring of black vultures

Table 9. Recommended damage assessments and ecological studies.

REPORT - 21

Birds

Ravens: population status and modeling; DRC-1339 take (2); impact on sage grouse reproduction; movements between livestock and

sage grouse leks/nesting areas at different times of year

Vultures: impact on calving with absentee landowners; sustainable harvest along Appalachian ridge and for Mississippi Flyway states

east of Mississippi River; methods to reduce local and regional populations; social dynamics of foraging vultures; assessment of whether lethal control increase sage grouse survival

Raptors: golden eagle damage to lambs; development of non-lethal control methods; effect of osprey nest relocation on nest success

Rose-ringed parakeets: removal methods

Geese: methods to control damage to wheat; determination of whether lethal control should be used more frequently than non-lethal

Aquaculture: economic impact of wading and water birds on commercial crawfish industry; status of cormorant populations across

mid-South

Aviation: design of ponds on or near airports; effect of age, sex and migratory status on return rates of relocated raptors; effectiveness

of bald eagle relocation efforts; assessment of optimum grass height at Missouri and Iowa airports to reduce wildlife use

Feral Swine

Assessment of damages; improved baits lures and attractants (4); comparison of trap door designs; techniques for estimating

populations (3); assessment control techniques; improvement of control methods (2); better management techniques for managing Eurasian strain of feral swine; assessment of swine-vectored disease impacts to freshwater aquifers

Predators

Assessment of control methods; cost-effectiveness of wolf fences in upper Midwest; assess M-44 lures; development of non-lethal

control methods for eastern U.S.; more lethal control research; economic analysis of WS control activities (2); effectiveness of targeted wolf control; movements and impacts of coyote pairs/family groups; effectiveness of turbofladry; effectiveness of range rider program; assessment of management for enhancing wildlife populations

Other Mammals

Ungulates: damage reduction relative to different management actions; environmental contamination by lead ammunition; impacts/

damages caused by deer in North Carolina

Beaver: ecological relationship between river beaver and salmonids; effectiveness of various exclusion devices; effectiveness of

beaver fences for excluding damming of water flow devices; efficacy of non-lethal management

Rodents: more efficient toxicant delivery system for prairie dogs; response to management of brown treesnakes

Mongooses: better control methods

Diseases: genetic sequencing of rabies vectors

National Environmental Policy Act: impacts on target species populations; sustainable predator/prey removals

Miscellaneous: comparison of lead and non-lead ammunition; development of a viable non-lead bullet for urban deer removal; impact

of lead ammunition on raptor populations; environmental lead contamination; impact of management on maintaining functioning ecosystems; analysis of state nuisance wildlife helplines to identify future research needs; analysis of whether population objectives should drive the WS Decision Model

Table 10. Specific research areas that WS Operations personnel would like addressed in their respective programs, states, or regions.

22 - REPORT

Figure 2. Percentage of WS Operations (left-most stacked bars in each triad), NWRC (the middle bars), and external stakeholders (the

stacked bars on the right of each triad) respondents that use various outreach avenues and products monthly (orange) and annually

(orange & grey) to obtain information about NWRC.

NWRC support services and outreach

NWRC provides a broad array of support services to Center scientists and WS Operations

staff (Table 11). Ninety-one percent of WS Operations and 100% of NWRC respondents said

that they use one or more NWRC support services annually. Most of the support services were

used by personnel in both the WS Operations and at NWRC. The National Wildlife Disease

Program (NWDP) works closely with WS Operations to conduct wildlife disease monitoring and

surveillance in all regions of the United States and to act as WS' first responders through

NWDP's Surveillance and Emergency Response System. Personnel throughout WS rely on

NWRC’s library for up-to-date information about a variety of wildlife damage issues. All support

units were heavily used by NWRC scientists, especially the archive, quality control/quality

assurance, and library units.

Ninety-six percent of WS Operations respondents stated that they had collaborated with at

least one NWRC research project during the previous 5 years, and 98% stated that NWRC is

(No

t d

istr

ibu

ted

exte

rnall

y)

sometimes or always responsive to their research needs. WS Operations respondents had a

number of suggestions when asked how NWRC can be more responsive, including be more

applied, address WS Operations’ needs, give more credit to research that might not result in

peer-reviewed publications (e.g., NEPA analyses), conduct more predator damage management

research, provide better information on the NWRC website, and publish in a timely fashion.

When asked about their preferred venue for receiving information about NWRC research, WS

Operations overwhelmingly preferred one-on-one communication (Table 12), although many

also read the NWRC Science Update and email announcements of publications. NWRC

respondents also preferred one-on-one communication, as well as reading peer-reviewed

publications. External stakeholders equally preferred one-on-one communication; technical

notes, factsheets, brochures, and popular articles; and conferences, meetings, and workshops.

REPORT - 23

Table 11. Percent of WS Operations and NWRC respondents who used various support services at least annually.

Support Service Operations NWRC

National Wildlife Disease Program 95 44

Library 72 86

Safety 71 78

Product Registration 64 59

Technology Transfer 55 63

Archives/Records Management 47 92

Economics 44 37

Genetics 36 61

Geographical Information Systems 34 64

Chemistry/Formulations 34 70

BioLabs 20 47

Modeling 18 19

Animal Care 16 63

Quality Control/Quality Assurance 7 95

24 - REPORT

Table 12. Number of WS Operations, NWRC and External stakeholder respondents and preferred NWRC outreach activity or product.

Wildlife Services

Outreach Activity/Product Operations NWRC External Stakeholders

One-on-one communication 10 10 4

NWRC Science Update newsletter/Email announcements

5 1 -

Peer-reviewed publications 3 8 2

Website, online materials, social media 3 4 2

Technical notes, factsheets, brochures, popular articles

2 4 -

Email 2 3 4

Conferences/Meetings/Workshops 3 - 4

Seminars/Webinars 1 3 -

Monthly Highlights 1 - -

CONCLUSIONS

The five WS RNA’s conducted since 1992 have revealed some markedly similar results in

terms of priority wildlife-human conflicts and research needs. Livestock predation, bird

depredations on crops and aquaculture, aviation strike hazards, corvid roosts in urban and

suburban areas, abundant populations of blackbirds and starlings, aquatic mammals, and

invasive species continue to present management challenges. New or increasing challenges

include expanding populations of feral swine; new or rapidly expanding wildlife-transmitted

zoonotic and livestock diseases such as highly pathogenic avian influenza, rabies, chronic

wasting disease, and pseudorabies; urban/suburban wildlife conflicts; and an increasing need to

document environmental impacts. Over the years, participants in the WS RNAs have

consistently expressed a need for more effective tools (e.g., traps, toxicants, repellents, lures,

and vaccines), methods to assess the impact of wildlife damage and management actions,

methods to monitor wildlife populations, and more effective non-lethal hazing devices. UAVs,

rapidly advancing genetic techniques, geographic information systems (GIS) capabilities, and

advanced computer modeling offer new opportunities to facilitate research to develop more

REPORT - 25

effective tools and management strategies. As human populations and our impacts on the

environment continue to grow, existing human-wildlife conflicts will also increase and new

conflicts emerge. There is no one tool or method to resolve our wildlife challenges. With the

exception of invasive species, most people value and want to preserve wildlife, while reducing

their negative impacts. Because of this, we must find a balance in our search for effective,

practical and socially acceptable tools and methods to resolve human-wildlife conflicts.

Research likely will play an increasingly important role in this search.

LITERATURE CITED

Bruggers, R.L., R.O. Owens, and T. Hoffman. 2002. Wildlife damage management research

needs: perceptions of scientists, wildlife managers, and stakeholders of the USDA/Wildlife

Services program. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 49:213-223.

Bruggers, R.L., R. Owens, W.H. Clay, R. Reynolds, and C. Smith. 1996. Research needs

assessment. USDA/Animal Damage Control Program methods development. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center Unpubl. Rep.

4 pages & 3 appendices.

Clark, L., D. Nelson, and K. Gustad. 2007. USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services Research Needs

Assessment 2006. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service, Wildlife Services. Unpubl. Rep. 18 pp. & 4 appendices.

Packham, C.J., and G. Connolly. 1992. Control methods research priorities for Animal Damage

Control. Proc. 15th Vertebr. Pest Conf., J.E. Borrecco and R.E. Marsh eds., Pp. 12-16.

Tobin, M.E., S.A. Shwiff, J.E. McConnell, and G.A. Littauer. 2012. Wildlife Services 2011

Research Needs Assessment. Proc Vertebr. Pest Conf. 25:308-314.

26 - REPORT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Dr. Jessica Tegt of Mississippi State University’s Center for

Resolving Human-Wildlife Conflicts for her efforts in soliciting input from selected external

stakeholders.

PAGE 27

APPENDICES

28 - APPENDIX I

APPENDIX I I - 29

30 - APPENDIX I I I

APPENDIX I I I—31

32 - APPENDIX I I I

APPENDIX I I I - 33

34 - APPENDIX I I I

APPENDIX I I I - 35

36 - APPENDIX I I I

APPENDIX I I I - 37

38 - APPENDIX I I I

APPENDIX I I I - 39

40 - APPENDIX I I I

APPENDIX I I I - 41

42 - APPENDIX I I I

APPENDIX I I I - 43

44 - APPENDIX I I I

APPENDIX I I I - 45

46 - APPENDIX IV

APPENDIX IV - 47

48 - APPENDIX IV

APPENDIX IV - 49

50 - APPENDIX IV

APPENDIX IV - 51

52 - APPENDIX IV

APPENDIX IV - 53

54 - APPENDIX IV

APPENDIX IV - 55

56 - APPENDIX IV

APPENDIX IV - 57

58 - APPENDIX IV

APPENDIX IV - 59

60 - APPENDIX IV

APPENDIX IV - 61

62 - APPENDIX IV

APPENDIX IV - 63

64 - APPENDIX IV

APPENDIX V - 65

66 - APPENDIX V

APPENDIX V - 67

68 - APPENDIX V

APPENDIX V - 69

70 - APPENDIX V

APPENDIX V - 71

72 - APPENDIX V

APPENDIX V - 73

74 - APPENDIX V

APPENDIX V - 75

76 - APPENDIX V

For more informat ion, p lease contact :

USDA -APHIS -Wildl i fe Serv ices

Nat ional Wi ld l i fe Research Center

4101 LaPorte Avenue

Fort Col l ins , CO 80521

970 -266 -6000

World cloud highlighting wildlife species or issues likely to have the most significant future economic impacts based on survey responses from WS Opera-tions employees. Word clouds are graphical representations of word frequency that give greater prominence to words that appear more frequently in a source text. The larger the word in the visual, the more often the word was mentioned in responses to the 2106 WS Research Needs Assessment.

Documents

U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services Research ...€¦ · 2 -TABLE OF CONTENTS 2016 WS Research Needs Assessment Report Abstract.....3 Key Words ... Feral cats/dogs 0